Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s main argument can be found on page 9 of Applicant’s arguments reproduced below:
“Jia describes an approach that centers on reducing uneven structures (e.g., a coffee ring structure) through ink formulation and process conditions within each pixel aperture, not on sequencing deposition across multiple exposed surfaces based on their areas. Specifically, Jia teaches adding ink to accommodating portions by an inkjet printing process without any instruction to prioritize larger exposed surfaces ahead of smaller ones (Jia at paras. [0087]- [0088], FIG. 3), and then forming the organic functional layer via vacuum freeze drying with adjustments to solvent properties and vacuum degree to equalize evaporation rates across the ink surface (Jia paras. [0091]-[0092], FIG. 4). Nowhere does Jia teach or suggest an ink deposition sequence dictated by area of exposed surfaces, from largest area to smallest area; rather, Jia is silent on "wherein the forming of the emission layer comprises forming the emission layer by ejecting ink onto the plurality of exposed upper surfaces in an order from an exposed upper surface having a largest area to an exposed upper surface having a smallest area."”
The Office respectfully disagrees with the argument above. As mentioned in Non-Final, filed 10/9/2025, the limitation “…wherein the forming of the emission layer comprises forming the emission layer by ejecting ink onto the plurality of exposed upper surfaces in an order from an exposed upper surface having a largest area to an exposed upper surface having a smallest area.” is addressed by pointing to the prior art pointed out by Applicant above: “fig. 3, please see the incline of the banks which include the limitation mentioned above; par. 87-93.” Please note that the prior art used in the Non-Final is the PGPUB of the patent i.e. Jia (20190296239) or Jia (10573813) and this can be seen on the patent. For the limitation mentioned above, Applicant has not addressed what was mentioned in Non-Final, specifically as it pertains to Fig. 3..
For at least this reasons, previous rejection stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 10-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jia (20190296239).
Regarding claim 1, Jia teaches an method of manufacturing a display device (please see figs. 1-5), the method comprising:
preparing a substrate (fig. 1: 1);
forming a plurality of pixel electrodes (fig. 1: 4) on the substrate;
forming a pixel-defining layer (fig. 2: 21) covering edge portions of the plurality of pixel electrodes and defining a plurality of exposed upper surfaces of the plurality of pixel electrodes; and
forming an emission layer (fig. 4: 6; par. 58 teaches a common emitting layer) on the plurality of exposed upper surfaces of the plurality of pixel electrodes,
wherein the forming of the emission layer comprises forming the emission layer by ejecting ink onto the plurality of exposed upper surfaces in an order from an exposed upper surface having a largest area to an exposed upper surface having a smallest area (fig 3, please see the incline of the banks which include the limitation mentioned above; par. 87-93).
Regarding claim 8, Jia teaches an method of claim 1, wherein the forming of the emission layer comprises forming the emission layer including an upper portion of the emission layer that is flat at a center portion of each of the plurality of exposed upper surfaces (see fig. 5).
Regarding claim 10, Jia teaches an method of claim 1, wherein an upper surface of a side surface of the pixel-defining layer has liquid repellency (par. 67).
Regarding claim 11, Jia teaches an method of claim 1, further comprising forming an opposite electrode (fig. 5: 5) on the emission layer.
Regarding claim 12, Jia teaches an method of claim 11, wherein the opposite electrode covers the emission layer and the pixel-defining layer (see fig. 5).
Claim(s) 13, 19 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jia (20190296239).
Regarding claim 13, Jia teaches an method of manufacturing a display device, the method comprising:
preparing a substrate (fig. 1: 1);
forming, on the substrate, a plurality of pixel electrodes (fig. 1: 4) disposed in a plurality of pixels emitting light of a same wavelength band (pixels made in fig. 5 have the same wavelength);
forming a pixel-defining layer (fig. 2: 21) covering edge portions of the plurality of pixel electrodes and defining a plurality of exposed upper surfaces of the plurality of pixel electrodes, the plurality of exposed upper surfaces having different areas from each other; and
forming an emission layer (fig. 4: 6; par. 58 teaches a common emitting layer) on the plurality of exposed upper surfaces of the plurality of pixel electrodes,
wherein the forming of the emission layer comprises forming the emission layer by ejecting ink onto the plurality of exposed upper surfaces in an order from an exposed upper surface having a largest area to an exposed upper surface having a smallest area (fig 3, please see the incline of the banks which include the limitation mentioned above; par. 87-93).
Regarding claim 19, Jia teaches an method of claim 13, wherein an upper surface of a side surface of the pixel-defining layer has liquid repellency (par. 67).
Regarding claim 20, Jia teaches an method of claim 13, further comprising forming an opposite electrode (fig. 5: 5) on the emission layer.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim (18121070).
Regarding claim 2, Jia teaches an method of claim 1.
Prior art fails to teach:
method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of pixel electrodes comprise: a 1-1th pixel electrode disposed in a 1-1th pixel, a 2-1 th pixel electrode disposed in a 2-1th pixel, and a 3-1th pixel electrode disposed in a 3-1th pixel, and the 1-1th pixel, the 2-1th pixel, and the 3-1th pixel are configured to emit light of different wavelength bands from each other
Kim teaches forming OLEDs wherein the emitting layer for all subpixels is composed of material that emits white light (par. 33) and each subpixel has a filter which converts white light in predetermined colors. The use of a common light emitting layer for all subpixels simplifies the deposition process and allows for simplified modification of device emittance by changing color filter preference.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time said invention was made to utilize the teachings of the secondary prior art(s) in the primary prior art(s) due to aforementioned reason(s).
Regarding claim 3, Jia/Kim teaches an method of claim 2, wherein the 1-1th pixel is configured to emit red light, the 2-1th pixel is configured to emit green light, and the 3-1th pixel is configured to emit blue light (Kim, par. 33).
Regarding claim 4, Jia/Kim teaches an method of claim 3, wherein the plurality of exposed upper surfaces comprise: a 1-1th exposed upper surface disposed on the 1-1th pixel electrode, a 2-1th exposed upper surface disposed on the 2-1th pixel electrode, and a 3-1th exposed upper surface disposed on the 3-1th pixel electrode, and an area of the 1-1th exposed upper surface is different from an area of the 2-1th exposed upper surface or an area of the 3-1th exposed upper surface (Kim shows in fig. 1 multiple pixels having different surfaces).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Kim (18121070).
Regarding claim 17, Jia teaches an method of claim 1.
Prior art fails to teach:
a method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of pixels emitting light of a same wavelength band are configured to emit one of red light, green light, and blue light.
Kim teaches forming OLEDs wherein the emitting layer for all subpixels is composed of material that emits white light (par. 33) and each subpixel has a filter which converts white light in predetermined colors. The use of a common light emitting layer for all subpixels simplifies the deposition process and allows for simplified modification of device emittance by changing color filter preference.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time said invention was made to utilize the teachings of the secondary prior art(s) in the primary prior art(s) due to aforementioned reason(s).
Claim(s) 9 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jia as applied to claim 1 and 18 above, and further in view of Kim (18121070).
Regarding claim 9 and 18, Jia teaches an method of claim 1 and 18.
Prior art fails to teach:
method further comprising baking the pixel-defining layer after the forming of the pixel-defining layer
Jia teaches that the bank layer (21) is composed of silicon oxide or silicon nitride and it is known in the art that baking helps to reduce the outgassing of silicone-based materials, as taught in Jeong (par. 59).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time said invention was made to utilize the teachings of the secondary prior art(s) in the primary prior art(s) due to aforementioned reason(s).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a method of claim 4, wherein the area of the 1-1th exposed upper surface is larger than the area of the 2-1th exposed upper surface and the area of the 3-1th exposed upper surface.
Claim 6 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a method of claim 4, wherein the area of the 2-1th exposed upper surface is larger than the area of the 1-1th exposed upper surface and the area of the 3-1th exposed upper surface.
Claim 7 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a method of claim 4, wherein the area of the 3-1th exposed upper surface is larger than the area of the 1-1th exposed upper surface and the area of the 2-1th exposed upper surface.
Claim 14 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: a method of claim 13, wherein the plurality of pixel electrodes comprise: a 1-1th pixel electrode disposed in a 1-1th pixel, and a 1-2th pixel electrode disposed in a 1-2th pixel, and a 1-1th exposed upper surface on the 1-1th pixel electrode is larger than a 1-2th exposed upper surface on the 1-2th pixel electrode.
Claim 15 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 14.
Claim 16 is objected to based on its dependency on claim 15.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CALEB E HENRY whose telephone number is (571)270-5370. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Eva Montalvo can be reached at (571) 270-3829. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CALEB E HENRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2818
Prosecution Insights